BREAKING: Obama's NSA Advisor Susan Rice Requested The Unmaskings Of Incoming Trump Officials

[JimBowie1958]

Does she realize she has committed a felony and is now risking jail time?

Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."...

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.​

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Name the leaker, dumbass.

LOL!!!!!

Prove RUSSIA gave the "hacks" to Wiki... dumbass.

You hate the HACKS because they exposed the TRUTH about the Dems to the US voters, who then REJECTED THE DEMS.

Spot on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You hate the HACKS because they exposed the TRUTH about the Dems to the US voters, who then REJECTED THE DEMS.

You just made the case that the Russians influenced our election, dope.

how's that? you mean wikileaks right?

No, dope.
The fact that the Russians were behind the hacks and release is not in dispute. It's the basis of the counter intelligence investigation that includes Trump.

Oh it is completely in dispute. Not one government intel agency has examined the servers. That's the bottom line here. The two IT companies worked for the DNC and US Department of Defense.

Outside companies. With yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge D connections.

Not one government intel agency has examined the servers.

Who said they needed to in order to reach the determination that Russia was behind the hack and release?

Are they all lying or just incompetent?

 

[easyt65]

[The question really is why Obama didn't release the names before the election.

No laws were broken in collecting the information and Trump campaigners had no right to not being outed.

That is a lie.

The Directors of both the FBI and CIA have pointed out that once it was deemed that the information had NO FOREIGN INTEL VALUE the information became PROTECTED CLASSIFIED PERSONAL INFORMATION. Had Obama personally released the names / info to the public HE would have personally been guilty of FELONY ESPIONAGE instead of his criminal loyalists.

 

[Rambunctious]

President Obama may regret being too honorable to release this legal information before the election

Obama is the most dishonorable man to ever sit in the Oval office. He makes Nixon look like the Pope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So the unmasking wasn't illegal then?

It was illegal because she gave the info to somebody who released it the press simply to embarass Trump.

Q&A on 'unmasking' and leaking classified information

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNMASKING AND LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

One is legal and the other isn't.

The "unmasking" of Flynn's name is routine, Wittes said. But, he said, sharing Flynn's name publicly "is both shocking and inappropriate."

It is a crime to disclose or "leak" classified information. The contents of intelligence collected under the authorities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, are classified. Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was collected under these authorities and therefore classified.

IS IT ILLEGAL TO LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION THAT IS INACCURATE?

No.

"If it's not accurate, then it's not classified," Wittes said. "You can't classify stuff that isn't true."

The Trump administration has said reports that Trump associates were in touch with the Kremlin during the campaign are false. Yet the White House has called for leak investigations into the matter.

"You can't say both — that it is a crime to leak and that it is false," Wittes said.

CAN THE PRESIDENT LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

No, says Wittes.

"The president can declassify anything he wants," Wittes said. "The mere act of the president saying something is a 'declassification.'"​

​

It was illegal because she gave the info to somebody who released it the press simply to embarass Trump

Who says?

The NYT.

Post it up buttercup.

Somebody already did, dickhead.

No, they didn't.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yep.....it took awhile for them to figure out that its Susan Rice that is going to take the fall here.......and it works politically because she still is the one who looks the most stoopid post-Benghazi with the fake video crap.

But Im still laughing at the suckers who have been tuning in for weeks at CNN to the fake Russia collusion story while the Trump tweet has been getting more sweaty balls in your face true for about a week now!!

Has the bumpy cucumber ever been bigger than this moment for the progressive k00ks than it is now?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dagny Delinquent on Twitter

Mary Anne Marsh, a democrat, reveals that the Obama admin had been investigating Trump since the spring of 2015!!

 

[Lakhota]

It's hilarious to watch NaziCons jump on the latest shiny object to divert attention away from Trump/Russia.

 

[jc456]

So the unmasking wasn't illegal then?

It was illegal because she gave the info to somebody who released it the press simply to embarass Trump.

Q&A on 'unmasking' and leaking classified information

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNMASKING AND LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

One is legal and the other isn't.

The "unmasking" of Flynn's name is routine, Wittes said. But, he said, sharing Flynn's name publicly "is both shocking and inappropriate."

It is a crime to disclose or "leak" classified information. The contents of intelligence collected under the authorities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, are classified. Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was collected under these authorities and therefore classified.

IS IT ILLEGAL TO LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION THAT IS INACCURATE?

No.

"If it's not accurate, then it's not classified," Wittes said. "You can't classify stuff that isn't true."

The Trump administration has said reports that Trump associates were in touch with the Kremlin during the campaign are false. Yet the White House has called for leak investigations into the matter.

"You can't say both — that it is a crime to leak and that it is false," Wittes said.

CAN THE PRESIDENT LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

No, says Wittes.

"The president can declassify anything he wants," Wittes said. "The mere act of the president saying something is a 'declassification.'"​

​

It was illegal because she gave the info to somebody who released it the press simply to embarass Trump

Who says?

the facts.

cite the law. I call bullshit.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

"Without a court order
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year, provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information,[5] that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers,[6] that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures.[7]"

 

[Rambunctious]

LOCK HER UP THE LYING BITCH!!!!!

 

[jc456]

It's hilarious to watch NaziCons jump on the latest shiny object to divert attention away from Trump/Russia.

what's that?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Unmasking is not illegal if it is pertinent to an ongoing investigation.

What was being investigated that all of Trump's people had o be unmasked? What criminal activity?

Trump has been under investigation since July of '16. This is from the transition period.
The same time that the Obama admin was archiving Intel pertaining to Trump people.

why? one has to have a crime. So what was the crime? I've been waiting patiently. why can't we hear about the crime for the investigation? how is that classified?

No, it has to have foreign intelligence value.
Certainly it would be pertinent in a counter intelligence investigation that includes Trump and his people.

no, one has to have a crime to issue a warrant. PERIOD. try again.

no, one has to have a crime to issue a warrant. PERIOD. try again.

What warrant?

 

[jc456]

LOL!!!!!

Prove RUSSIA gave the "hacks" to Wiki... dumbass.

You hate the HACKS because they exposed the TRUTH about the Dems to the US voters, who then REJECTED THE DEMS.

Spot on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You hate the HACKS because they exposed the TRUTH about the Dems to the US voters, who then REJECTED THE DEMS.

You just made the case that the Russians influenced our election, dope.

how's that? you mean wikileaks right?

No, dope.
The fact that the Russians were behind the hacks and release is not in dispute. It's the basis of the counter intelligence investigation that includes Trump.

Oh it is completely in dispute. Not one government intel agency has examined the servers. That's the bottom line here. The two IT companies worked for the DNC and US Department of Defense.

Outside companies. With yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge D connections.

Not one government intel agency has examined the servers.

Who said they needed to in order to reach the determination that Russia was behind the hack and release?

Are they all lying or just incompetent?

the american people said so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

LOCK HER UP THE LYING BITCH!!!!!

Well lets give her a fair trial before we hang her, huh?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So the unmasking wasn't illegal then?

It was illegal because she gave the info to somebody who released it the press simply to embarass Trump.

Q&A on 'unmasking' and leaking classified information

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNMASKING AND LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

One is legal and the other isn't.

The "unmasking" of Flynn's name is routine, Wittes said. But, he said, sharing Flynn's name publicly "is both shocking and inappropriate."

It is a crime to disclose or "leak" classified information. The contents of intelligence collected under the authorities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, are classified. Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was collected under these authorities and therefore classified.

IS IT ILLEGAL TO LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION THAT IS INACCURATE?

No.

"If it's not accurate, then it's not classified," Wittes said. "You can't classify stuff that isn't true."

The Trump administration has said reports that Trump associates were in touch with the Kremlin during the campaign are false. Yet the White House has called for leak investigations into the matter.

"You can't say both — that it is a crime to leak and that it is false," Wittes said.

CAN THE PRESIDENT LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

No, says Wittes.

"The president can declassify anything he wants," Wittes said. "The mere act of the president saying something is a 'declassification.'"​

​

It was illegal because she gave the info to somebody who released it the press simply to embarass Trump

Who says?

the facts.

Post them up.

 

[jc456]

What was being investigated that all of Trump's people had o be unmasked? What criminal activity?

Trump has been under investigation since July of '16. This is from the transition period.
The same time that the Obama admin was archiving Intel pertaining to Trump people.

why? one has to have a crime. So what was the crime? I've been waiting patiently. why can't we hear about the crime for the investigation? how is that classified?

No, it has to have foreign intelligence value.
Certainly it would be pertinent in a counter intelligence investigation that includes Trump and his people.

no, one has to have a crime to issue a warrant. PERIOD. try again.

no, one has to have a crime to issue a warrant. PERIOD. try again.

What warrant?

exactly! what warrant? without one, names stay masked. PERIOD!!!!!

 

[The Original Tree]

So the unmasking wasn't illegal then?

It matters not if it was illegal or legal. Your whole party has been caught in lie, after lie after lie.
You can debate that all you want. The fact is, Obama was conducting Surveillance on Donald Trump, and probably other GOP Candidates. I would lay a bet on ALL OF THEM, and was passing the information along to Hillary Clinton.

And that most DEFINATELY IS ILLEGAL, and a Felony, and is Considered Felony Espionage.
You can make a case for Treason and Sedition as well.

I told all of you Leftists, that you were overplaying you hand, and that your Russian Narrative was too outlandish and sensationalist to be true, and that is was nothing but a crafted lie to distract from the corruption of the DNC and served as deflection for a stinging loss.

Now those lies are going to sink you.

Welcome to 2018, where people will not forget all the bullshit you put everyone through the moment you tapped a Criminal Clinton to be your Queen of The Damned.

It matters not if it was illegal or legal.

It certainly does. Your fellow nutjubs were screeching over "illegal unmasking".
Now it's just, meh.

So what is the beef? What is the corruption?

No surveillance. No illegal unmasking.

It was still leaked and used for political purposes against the incoming president by the Obama administration.
Trump and his transition team should never have been included or unmasked.

This has been Damocles sword over Trump and his team till now. It could have been cleared up months ago by Obama and Rice. Now they will have to explain their actions and who was allowed to leak any of this.

Trump might not have the the "direct" subject but the information from him and his team certainly was and unmasked. It shouldn't have been. Nothing illegal about foreign contacts during transition by or with the team, nor should their strategy be the subject.

Obama should not have been listening to Trump and team and most certainly the info and names should never have been leaked to anyone.

It was still leaked and used for political purposes against the incoming president by the Obama administration.

Says who?

Says The Facts.

• The Leaking of Surveillance Is A Felony.
• The Unmasking Of An "INCIDENTAL TARGET" Is A Felony.
• Unmasking can only occur if it is authorized in writing by Congress, or by The Intelligence Agency holding The Intelligence, or By Order of The President.
• No Order was made. This is another Felony!
• Lastly, Unmasking can only occur on an "INCIDENTAL TARGET" if that target has committed a crime and again the unmasking and release of classified Intel is authorized. Again a Felony to do this without authorization.

And Finally, you are Phucked by The Web of Deceit, Lies and Corruption you wove for yourself. Get ready for some serious Butt Hurting Karmic Justice.

The best part is we get to watch!
They'd make a killing on PPV when the shit finally comes to roost on your heads.


Best year of my political life!

Thanks Obama

 

[mudwhistle]

President Obama may regret being too honorable to release this legal information before the election.

He couldn't because the truth doesn't help him.

If they make up a fake story about Russian hacking or collusion with Trump, neither which is true, they aren't breaking the law. If they simply told the 100% unvarnished truth, which doesn't help them, they're breaking the law. So the whole mess was made up.

 

[jc456]

So the unmasking wasn't illegal then?

It was illegal because she gave the info to somebody who released it the press simply to embarass Trump.

Q&A on 'unmasking' and leaking classified information

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNMASKING AND LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

One is legal and the other isn't.

The "unmasking" of Flynn's name is routine, Wittes said. But, he said, sharing Flynn's name publicly "is both shocking and inappropriate."

It is a crime to disclose or "leak" classified information. The contents of intelligence collected under the authorities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, are classified. Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was collected under these authorities and therefore classified.

IS IT ILLEGAL TO LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION THAT IS INACCURATE?

No.

"If it's not accurate, then it's not classified," Wittes said. "You can't classify stuff that isn't true."

The Trump administration has said reports that Trump associates were in touch with the Kremlin during the campaign are false. Yet the White House has called for leak investigations into the matter.

"You can't say both — that it is a crime to leak and that it is false," Wittes said.

CAN THE PRESIDENT LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

No, says Wittes.

"The president can declassify anything he wants," Wittes said. "The mere act of the president saying something is a 'declassification.'"​

​

It was illegal because she gave the info to somebody who released it the press simply to embarass Trump

Who says?

the facts.

Post them up.

I just posted it. Foreign Intelligence ACT

 

[Syriusly]

LOCK HER UP THE LYING BITCH!!!!!

Well lets give her a fair trial before we hang her, huh?

Well that would be a different GOP tactic.